It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cathy Newman is Hallucinating? Or is She Dishonest?

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Trying to read people has always been a problem for me. I am not very good at it. For me, just say what's on your mind – straight. Too easy. When I run into people who do not do this, for a multitude of reasons, it makes me feel like they are being dishonest. I am learning they may not be.

Consider the Jordan Petersen/Cathy Newman interview on Channel 4. She drove me nuts. She would ask a question and he would answer it very clearly. Cue “So what you’re saying is…” and proceed to completely distort what was said. Here is the link:
www.youtube.com...

Immediately, I am of the mind she is dishonest. I guess that’s my default interpretation. She wants to push a narrative so damn the facts and full speed ahead. I was kind of embarrassed for her. She hits rock bottom and continues to dig.

I run into another video a few days later with a different perspective. Link is here:
www.youtube.com...

This man is a psychologist (?). His opinion is she is having momentary hallucinations. She is angry and emotionally invested in her preconceived notions. When she hears something producing cognitive dissonance, she literally has a hallucination. She is not intentionally being dishonest; her brain is interpreting the situation far differently than an average third person viewer. I can attest, I am guilty of this sometimes as is anyone.

Is she dishonest or is she hallucinating? While I will never be interviewed by her on Channel 4, I run into people like her all the time.
Telling someone they are either a lying sack of s*** or completely clueless derails productive discussion. Telling them they are suffering a hallucination is beyond my pay grade. I am not a licensed and practicing psychologist. And honestly, I do not know which of the above it is.

But the smug, arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical Cathy Newman’s of the world are insufferable. Silence is consent and all that. Can’t let it go. But trying to have a discussion with them is impossible. How does one proceed?




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I think you are correct. I think people like this hear things they don't want to hear and then perceive that it is a threat. Once they feel they themselves, or their beliefs/feelings have been threatened - they go into an automated defense mode.

Much like some parents who automatically defend their children's bad behavior or lack of performance.

As per dealing with them, I have no idea. I can't stand that mentality either, and it's very prevalent these days.
I usually put it down to bad parenting, raising spoiled brats that emulate their idols on t.v. , social media , etc.

I try like hell to avoid dealing with them, they are usually pretty easy to spot as per their hyper-inflated ego and self-aggrandizing behavior.
edit on 23-1-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Interesting. I've never thought of the possibility that people use a defense mechanism to combat truths they don't want to acknowledge.

I suppose it makes sense considering how many different methods we humans implement to protect both body and mind from what is a perceived threat.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
This such an epic interview, I wouldn't be surprised if they use it as a famous example of the zeitgeist, in the future.

'Hallucinating' is a strong word, but I think she's being honest. She's just blind to his arguments because she already sees him as a bad guy, and his message puts some of the core values of herself and her subculture under scrutiny. Of course Peterson is extremely reasonable and quite moderate in his opinions, but we exist in a hyper-opinionated culture where you can hardly have a reasonable discussion (not that it was better before, necessarily).

I'm sure she has somewhat more nuanced views deep down, maybe she can see his points to some extent, but she needs to be hard on him and challenge what are perceived to be these regressive opinions coming from him. Unfortunately real dialog is unlikely to happen here because there are a lot of expectations on how this interview will turn out, both journalistic and ideological. If she didn't try to shoot him down then she'd loose credibility in the eyes of some of her colleagues, and feminists and what not.

How to deal with them? I think Peterson sets the best example. Just be calm and use your words very carefully, be polite (but not too polite) and don't try too hard. Sometimes it is possible to find a certain peace in this. Of course it's easier when you're not being subjected to full-blown "self-criticism" in Maoist China, and when you are as smart and well-read as Peterson. Sometimes it's better to just call people out too I'm sure, but chances are it will make it even harder to discuss.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

This is a great interview to watch, it really demonstrates Peterson's intellect and the fact-less debate method of Newman.

The best part is all the “so your saying” memes that have come out of this.

Also watch for his literal “got-cha” moment. She asks him why his right to free speech should Trump a trans persons right to not be offended ( a right that doesn’t exsist), he explains to her that to have a meaningful exchange of ideas is to risk offending, and that she is willing to risk offending him in the pursuit of truth, and asks why she thinks she has that right. You can actually see the moment her liberal brain short circuits.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Jordan Peterson just schooled her and she wasn't listening to what he actually said. Instead, every time she inserted her own preconceptions of the issues in. It's beautiful watching him dissect a discussion with calm reason.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Guy worked with me a few years back. He ends up being fired for being a complete ass in every possible way. He was so bad he is still legendary for the ultimate schlemiel within the company.

Our company believes in open, caring confrontation. Meaning when someone screws up, call them on it politely and work to resolve it. Its not about fixing the blame, its about fixing the problem. Many who know me here will believe I feel incredibly comfortable in such an environment.

This dude (Im going to call him "Turd" for my own amusement)...we would tell him constantly what he was doing that was screwing up. Stuff like passing media calls through to the guests room when the guest was a celebrity (a MAJOR no no in the hotel world), or wadding up a list of employees and tossing it from the second floor and hitting the GM in the face down in the lobby (he was "just joking" and didn't realize it was such a problem).

Sexual harassment claims, not for actual harassment. But because Turd was too stupid to not say stupid things.

And when we would try to talk to the guy, we'd list grievances only to have him come back with, "So what im understanding here is...." and completely fail to take any responsibility over his actions. What Turd understood to be true was never accurate. It got so bad that the last 3 months he worked with us we refused to even try any more. The alternative was throttling him violently.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The end of your story is the crux of my question.

You tried to communicate with Turd in every sense of the word. JP did the same with CN in the "interview".

Yet, for reasons unknown, nothing gets any traction. I do not know Turd but in CN's case, I am trying to figure how how much of it was malfeasance and how much was pure human nature.

A sane person may choose to ignore people who act like that. Sometimes you can't. They are a fixture in your landscape and interaction is inevitable. I am getting old and cranky. I have zero patience for dancing the dance. Short of throat punching, I am perplexed what to do.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

His calmness was text book. How he did it, I have no clue.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

"Why does your right to free speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?"

That line took my breath away. I sat there thinking: Did I hear that right? Naw. Can't be.

But, yup. The Gold Medal for Breathtakingly Brain-Free Utterances.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

If im being honest, it makes my day to see you calling him by his new name.


I saw a clip of that interview, and it was hilarious the way he answered her and the obvious wheels spinning in the back of her head afterwards.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: pavil

His calmness was text book. How he did it, I have no clue.


He's always like that. Even on campus when they use loudspeakers to shout him down. He tries to calm his Supporters into not getting goaded into violence.
edit on 24-1-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
OK, watched the full interview last night. I have to say that I am just as impressed with the gentlemans composure and persistent use of solid logical reasoning as I am frustrated by that obtuse harpy trying to shove words in his mouth.

I wouldn't call that mental illness. I'd call it Spinderella trying to weave up a web of BS from wildly misconstrued ideas fed by key buzzwords in his replies. She is as dishonest as anyone i've seen, and I can't believe she has a salary for doing that kind of nonsense.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

OK. One vote for dishonest. I am leaning that way too.




top topics



 
9

log in

join